Category: Brazil

Categories
Brazil Memorialisation Right to truth

Doi-Codi: Building History and Transitional Justice in Brazil

The information that I bring here is unprecedented and very important, so Maastricht Blog on Transitional Justice deserves to be the first of all to report it.

As already reported by Prof. Flávio de Leão Bastos Pereira in January, 2022, a judicial process is underway in Sao Paulo-Brazil that aims to transform the former Doi-Codi facilities into a memorial. This memorial has two main purposes: to pay tribute to the thousands of tortured people and the dozens murdered by that agency between 1969 and 1983; to promote a better understanding of how the largest and most important center of repression of the Brazilian civil-military dictatorship functioned and was structured.

Created in 1969 from a consortium formed between the Government of the State of Sao Paulo, the Army and large companies, Doi-Codi was initially called Operação Bandeirante. It was installed on the premises of the Army’s 2nd Mechanized Reconnaissance Squadron, just 1km away from where it was later transferred, at Rua Tutoia, 921, occupying half of the 36th Police Station and an annex building at the back of the land. Understanding the importance of this place, in addition to its undoubted historical relevance, but also material and as an element of documentary evidence of the commission of felonies by the Brazilian State, it has been part of my work at the Historic Heritage Preservation Unit of the Secretary of Culture of the State of São Paulo since 2010.

In that year, the Council for the Defense of Historical, Artistic, Archaeological and Tourist Heritage of the State of Sao Paulo (Condephaat) was required to list as cultural heritage such buildings, considering “their historical importance and relevant didactic role that the aforementioned building has for generations of young Brazilians, who ignore the atrocities committed there, the listing will guarantee the preservation of this important physical document of our recent history” (SEIXAS apud NEVES, 2018). The request was presented by Ivan Akselrud Seixas – arrested at Doi-Codi in 1971 at the age of 16 along with his father Joaquim Seixas, murdered under torture days later.  Five human rights organizations endorsed his request, including the State Council Defense of Human Rights (Condepe), state agency linked to the Secretariat of Justice and Citizenship. Provided for in the state constitution, Condepe’s main purpose is to “investigate human rights violations in the territory of the state of São Paulo” (CONDEPE, https://justica.sp.gov.br/index.php/servicos/condepe/).

From this request, initial technical reports prepared between September and December 2010 pointed to the historical importance of the place, consisting of four buildings, a patio and covered garage, with two possible entrances: one through Rua Tutoia, leading to the police station, and another along the perpendicular street – Tomás de Carvalhal. There were no outstanding or notable architectural values ​​there – they were mass-produced buildings, probably in the 1960s, due to their stylistic characteristics. Like these buildings, there were many other police stations throughout the state of Sao Paulo. Two other buildings were out of tune: one resembled a residence and the other had exposed bricks and a garage on the ground floor, surrounded by a wall with two guardhouses, a typical feature of military installations.

In May 2012, Condephaat decided to preliminarily protect the building, guaranteeing the preservation of the property until the end of the technical studies and final decision of the Council. Between May 2012 and October 2013, the deepening of the studies allowed us to understand the dynamics of the Doi-Codi operation in each of the buildings. It also allowed us to understand how the military occupation of government buildings originally destined for civilian use took place. Based on research, very important documents were found:

  1. Decree 36.628/1960, which permitted the expropriation of three lands for the construction of the police station, and the respective transcripts of the land registry office. The Decree confirms the thesis of serial construction policy, since several other expropriations were authorized in different cities of the State of Sao Paulo;
  2. Two administrative processes that deal with the agreement for the transfer of part of the land from the State Public Security Secretariat to the Second Army Command;
  3. Aerial photographs from 1958, 1962, 1968, 1973 and 1977 that allowed identifying the evolution of construction. Initially, the police station and its annex building. In 1960, buildings in reinforced concrete, with external coating made of ceramic tiles, two floors, longitudinal and wide windows. Between 1968 and 1973, the common residence, with symmetrical sides and ceramic roof, with a facade protected only by painting, and a brick building built on structures above ground level. These constructions, therefore, were constructed by the Army and therefore were different from the first ones.

Based on these documents, inspections were carried out with people who were kidnapped by Doi-Codi between 1969 and 1975 and who reported where they were detained, where they were interrogated and tortured, where they entered the buildings and what they were able to recognize from this visit. In Brazil, it was the first time that a heritage preservation agency and former political prisoners worked in partnership for the recognition and preservation of a building related to the forces of governmental repression.

However, we did not find the original architectural plans for the buildings. The administrative processes indicated that the Army did not present the plans for the constructions that it carried out from 1969, but we believe that they exist. The buildings built to house the police station in 1960 should have blueprints since they were included in the State Government’s Action Plan, which provided for the construction of hundreds of public facilities. However, they were not located at the time of the study, which led us to create an alternative simple plan to the building. This plan helped the ex-prisoners to identify where they were interrogated and tortured; and it allowed the technical team of the Historic Heritage Preservation Unit (UPPH) to choose different degrees of preservation for the buildings, considering the use and the value of material evidence.

Ten years after the beginning of the studies, UPPH learned that the collection of the Department of Public Works, which was responsible for the Action Plan, had been incorporated into the Public Archive of the State of Sao Paulo after being inaccessible for least two decades. In consultation with the Cartography Center, we requested a search of the collection and finally the plans were located thanks to the commitment of the Archive employees involved in the search, bringing us joy and the possibility of furthering archaeological and architectural research to support the creation of the memorial.

Three initial aspects of these documents draw attention:

One, the annex building was originally designed to be a training and housing unit, whose character was perverted and transformed into a place of interrogation, torture and murder;

Two, the existence of a barber shop on the first floor confirms the testimony of Ivan Seixas, who reported that it was in that room that his father was tortured in the Dragon Chair (a kind of electric chair), because he remembered the sink installed there. The sink was provided for in the original plan;

Three, the last aspect resolves a doubt as to why only two buildings were built in the early 1960s, leaving the land empty. With access to the original project, the police station and the annex would be used as a kind of training center, containing two classrooms, a barber shop and 5 bedrooms with beds. In the area where the Army built its intelligence sector and accommodation, the construction of a Court was originally planned.

Thus, in that place where thousands of people were tortured and dozens were murdered, the principles of Justice passed away, distorting its initial purpose. As Flávio de Leão Bastos Pereira reported here, it was only in 2021 that Justice really filled in that space, on the occasion of the conciliation hearing between the State and the Public Ministry. It was the first time that Justice entered Doi-Codi, but it was not the first time that it was designed for that space. Education will also have space, not to train the Police, but to transform it.

These original documents are still under analysis and will serve as a basis for archaeological research scheduled to begin in July 2022 as part of a project to create and build a memorial, transforming the space into a place of memory and consciousness. However, they already show the importance of public records and of scientific research for serving transitional justice, which is moving slowly in Brazil.

Deborah Neves is Ph.D. in History, specialized in cultural heritage and sites of difficult memories. Historian at Historical Heritage Preservation Unit, Government of the Sao Paulo State, Brazil 

Categories
Brazil Memorialisation Satisfaction

The Fight For Memory, Truth and Justice in Brazil: The DOI-Codi Case

In a post published on Maastricht Blog on Transitional Justice, María José Guembe referred to the following statement made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in relation to the right of victims of serious human rights violations to reparations: “the fundamental obligation of a comprehensive reparations plan is not so much to return the situation to their status quo ante, which may be impossible, but to recognise the gravity of the violations and to show the State’s willingness to respect the rights” (translation mine). 

Adopting reparations that truly satisfy the expectations of the victims of serious human rights violations may be a difficult task. The adoption-making process should not ignore the characteristics of the culture of the peoples of the affected nation, the daily priorities of the victims, the historical dynamics of each State and the main aspects of the transition to democracy, among other factors.   

Relatives of dead and missing political prisoners at a demonstration at the former DOI-Codi headquarters in São Paulo

During the Brazilian civil-military dictatorship (1964-1985), the 36th Police District shared its facilities with one of the most important bodies of political repression: the Department of Operations and Information – Centre of Operations for Internal Defence (DOI-Codi), which was the first torture and extermination centre of the regime, in Sao Paulo. DOI-Codi was created in 1970, following the “successful” Operaçao Bandeirante (Oban) of 1969, which was launched to fight political opponents by political and military means.

According to the final report of the Brazilian National Truth Commission, DOI-Codi was commanded by an Army officer, generally a major or a colonel, and it was funded not only by the government but also with contributions from the private sector. DOI-Codi units were set up all over Brazil. Each unit was responsible for gathering information and planning security actions against left wing organisations, academics and other intellectuals, journalists, students, artists, workers, union leaders, and any other political opponents; such actions included the capture and interrogation of suspects.

Sao Paulo DOI-Codi is considered as one of the most active clandestine centres of torture and extermination during the Brazilian dictatorship. In fact, the goal of quickly obtaining information from kidnapped opponents by the DOI-Codi led to torture, rape, the killing of prisoners who were then presented as dead in combat or victims of suicide, etc.

The main torturer and commander of São Paulo DOI-Codi, Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ulstra before the National Truth Commission in 2013. Source: Folha de São Paulo (https://fotografia.folha.uol.com.br/galerias/15995-ustra-na-comissao-nacional-da-verdade)

After the dictatorship the premises of Sao Paulo DOI-Codi have been housing a police station (see here), but in 2014 they were declared of historical interest by the Council for the Defence of Historical, Archeological, Artistic and Touristic Heritage, following a petition by Mr Ivan Seixas—a survivor of this torture and extermination centre. The declaration of the premises of DOI-Codi as a site of historical interest was also consistent with the report issued by the Brazilian historian Debora Neves, who recommended the creation of a memory centre to honour the victims, and as a part of an educational process aimed at the new generations, so that another period marked by State terrorism will never happen in Brazil again.

The former site of operations of the DOI-Codi torture and extermination.
Photo: Sergio Sade/Editora Abril/Memorial da Democracia

However, due to the inertia of the successive governments of the State of Sao Paulo since 2014, in June 2021 the State Public Prosecution Office filed a lawsuit against the State of Sao Paulo so that effective measures are taken to convert the premises of Sao Paulo DOI-Codi into a memorial site. The Centre for the Preservation of the Political Memory of Sao Paulo, the Brazilian Bar Association and human rights organisations have joined the lawsuit as claimants.

The initial idea proposed in the lawsuit is for the police station to continue functioning on the site, with the other buildings of the premises already starting to be converted into a memorial. Later, the police station would be relocated to another address. In the lawsuit it is also requested that the site be transferred from the Secretariat of Public Security to the Secretariat of Culture of the State of Sao Paulo.

Unfortunately, the State of Sao Paulo refuses the conversion of the site into a memorial, despite the aspirations of victims of the dictatorship.

A hearing was scheduled for 9 September 2021, which took place not at the seat of the Court site but at the premises of the former torture and extermination centre. The hearing was attended by survivors, relatives of victims and the press. This historic hearing was recorded for the documentary O Dia em Que a Justiça Entrou no DOI-Codi (The Day Justice Entered the DOI-Codi), directed by Camilo Tavares.

The Court hearing held at the former DOI-Codi torture and extermination center, in Sep.,9th,2021
Photos by Professor Flávio de Leão Bastos Pereira

The DOI-Codi case is one of the most important ongoing cases in the context of transitional justice in Brazil. The struggle of DOI-Codi survivors, victims relatives, civil society organizations, federal and state prosecution offices, and the Brazilian Bar Association is of particular importance at present, given the extremist and denialist nature of the government of President Bolsonaro, who insists on destroying the democracy conquered with the great suffering of many.

Against this background, we trust the competent judicial authorities will uphold the claim filed by the State Public Prosecution Office and oblige the State of Sao Paulo to adopt all the necessary measures to convert the premises of the former Sao Paulo DOIC-Codi into a memorial site.

Dr Flávio de Leão Bastos Pereira is the correspondent of Maastricht Blog on Transitional Justice for Brazil and the lawyer representing Sao Paulo Political Memory Preservation Centre and the Brazilian Bar Association (Sao Paulo Section) in the DOI-Codi Case.

Categories
Brazil Indigenous peoples Non-repetition / institutional reform

The indigenous lands rights timeframe case

Xoqleng children. Photo source: www.fld.com.br

The Indigenous Lands Rights Timeframe Case before the Brazilian Supreme Court deals with the issue of whether indigenous communities can claim only the lands that they were already occupying on the date the Brazilian Federal Constitution came into force—October 5, 1988. This argument is defended by the Parliamentary Front for Agribusiness—also known as the ‘Rural Caucus’ in the National Congress—and by entities linked to agricultural and cattle-raising activities, whereas indigenous peoples fear losing the right to occupy and use lands that are in the process of demarcation.

The case reached the federal Supreme Court after decades of national discussion about the demarcation of indigenous lands in Brazil. The Rural Caucus and like-minded entities have been consistently opposing such demarcation for considering it an outrage to the right to property and an obstacle to land development. In the opposite side, the indigenous peoples have continuously requested the consolidation of indigenous lands rights, as established in Article 231 of the 1988 Constitutional Text.

Historical remarks about indigenous peoples in Brazil

In Brazil, what we call ‘modernity’ began with the arrival of the Europeans in America for colonization purposes, who used the excuse of bringing ‘civilization’ to establish organization models based on exploitation and plundering. The colonizers and their successors see themselves as the ones who developed the corners of the country, which once were only vegetation, to become civilized places. As a result, indigenous peoples are not seen as creditors of this process, but only as representatives of a past time associated with backwardness and failure. 

In this vein, when Brazil declared its independence from Portugal, the idea of indigenous peoples as historical, idyllic, and animalistic peoples was—and still is—deeply rooted in the national mindset and permeated the ensuing pedagogical model for many years.

Indigenous land Pirititi, Roraima State, Brazil. Photo: Felipe Werneck (IBAMA)

Indigenous peoples claims in the case

Brazilian indigenous peoples allege they have an original right to land because they were occupying the land well before the creation of the national State. Furthermore, they hold that the proposed timeframe ignores the indigenous peoples who have been dispossessed of their lands since the beginning of the colonial era in 1500 through violence or as a result of rural and urban expansion. Consequently, it would be impossible for indigenous peoples to occupy certain territories at the time the Federal Constitution was promulgated. 

They also argue that certain lands are means for connecting with their ancestors, for conserving their own culture, and for surviving the unbridled urban and rural expansion that is taking place in Brazilian territory. Thus, they are claiming areas that are still meaningful to their specific social organization.

Claims in favor of the expiration timeframe for indigenous lands rights

The Rural Caucus and like-minded entities are in favor of the timeframe. As there is no set deadline for the creation of indigenous lands, they argue that new lands can only be demarcated in favor of indigenous peoples who were already occupying the disputed territory on the date of the entry into force of the Federal Constitution. This argument is based on the interpretation of the phrase “traditionally occupy” used in Article 231 of the Constitution in the following context: “The social organization, customs, languages, beliefs and traditions of Indians are recognized, as well as their original rights over the lands they traditionally occupy“. The Rural Caucus submit that the rejection of their thesis  would result in impediments to “national development”, “free initiative” and the exercise of “productive activities for the benefit of all”.

The legal status of indigenous lands

In Brazil it is common to hear “there is too much land in the country for too few Indians”. Such expression generally supports the following propositions: a) indigenous communities hold too much land; b) indigenous lands fall short of their productive capacity, are underutilized, and constitute an obstacle to development, either because indigenous peoples are incompetent to exploit them properly, or because the current legislation hinders their exploitation; and c) indigenous lands adjacent to the national frontiers are susceptible to invasion, putting national sovereignty into risk. This type of argument is sustained by the groups interested in the natural resources of the indigenous lands, which in turn have been supported by the mass media and certain members of the judiciary.

According to the Federal Constitution, indigenous lands are spaces traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples; it is the Federal State’s responsibility to demarcate them, and to protect and ensure respect for all their resources. The lands belong to the Federal State, but indigenous peoples have an exclusive and permanent right to explore and exploit the natural resources and the right to practice their customs therein. It is worth noting that indigenous lands can be occupied by more than one ethnic group and are demarcated in accordance with the procedure laid down by Decree No. 1775 of 1996.

It should also be noted that the above-referred constitutional provision and the indigenous lands timeframe concern only traditionally occupied indigenous lands, as it is possible to create new indigenous lands in Brazil following a certain procedure. Once demarcation has been approved by the Ministry of Justice, occasional ‘non-Indians’ residing in those lands will be re-settled through the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA). As the last step, the President of Brazil should decide on the approval of the new indigenous land by decree.

Xoqleng children. Photo source: www.fld.com.br

We may further note that, in February 2019, the federal Supreme Court held that Extraordinary Appeal No. 1.017.365/SC, which deals with the constitutionality of the creation of an indigenous land for the Xokleng, constitutes a binding precedent for future similar cases. The holding is important because many demarcation and possessory disputes concerning traditional lands are currently pending before various courts, while several legislative projects that aim to remove or relativize indigenous constitutional rights over land are being considered.

Conclusion 

In our view, the judgment to be rendered by the federal Supreme Court should acknowledge the obvious: indigenous peoples who live in Brazil are Brazilians and they deserve to occupy and use the lands they have traditionally occupied. Sometimes, the obvious is hard to acknowledge: the timeframe thesis, besides being embarrassing, is a real absurdity: The history of indigenous peoples in Brazil did not begin only with the promulgation of the Federal Constitution in 1988 and the Supreme Court cannot ignore this fact.

Alvaro de Azevedo Gonzaga, Professor of Law, Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo

Felipe Labruna, University Researcher, Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo